Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Upwp Fy26 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MPO outlines FY26 UPWP constraints; perimeter loop trail and pinch‑point studies discussed
Summary
Staff presented the FY26 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) draft scope and funding outlook: PL funds nearly cover base operations and staff requested guidance on using reserves or cost shares for special studies such as a perimeter loop trail, MSU campus access study, and pinch‑point analyses.
Galton Valley MPO staff presented a preliminary scope and budget outlook for the FY26 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and asked TTAC to provide direction on potential special projects that would require additional funding or cost sharing beyond base federal planning (PL) funds.
Why it matters: The UPWP defines MPO staff work and how federal PL planning funds are allocated. PL funds are population‑based and intended to cover core MPO operations; additional studies or capital work typically require using reserves or local cost share to proceed.
Jeff Butts, MPO manager, explained PL (federal planning) funding is allocated by urbanized‑area population and rose about 2% this year with growth, producing a modest increase in PL funds. The City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade and Gallatin County hold a cost‑share agreement for expenses outside PL funds (Bozeman 50%, Belgrade 25%, Gallatin County 25%). Butts said the draft UPWP budget closely matches PL revenues and staff operations, membership, training, travel, rent and utilities, with a small reserve used for continuous traffic count station installation and office setup.
Butts identified reserve funding of about $250,000 available and noted the mayor of Bozeman had discussed a multi‑jurisdictional perimeter loop trail; Bozeman City has identified $70,000 toward that study and staff suggested the MPO could manage a regional study if partners cost‑share. Other potential special projects raised included an MSU campus access study, Main Street corridor concepts in Belgrade (including 4‑to‑3 lane conversion discussions), and targeted “pinch‑point” congestion studies (for example along Jackrabbit Lane and 19th & Main).
Nick Ross, TTAC chair, said LRTP updates often cost less than the initial plan and that if future LRTP updates required less consultant funding, the MPO could free budget capacity for special projects. Committee members recommended collecting priorities and returning a draft UPWP and funding options to TPCC and TTAC for subsequent review. Sunshine Ross expressed support for the perimeter loop study being managed by the MPO because it is multi‑jurisdictional. Jason Karp and others supported a site visit and further engagement for projects that are location‑specific.
No formal action was taken; staff will prepare the draft UPWP and return with funding scenarios and potential cost‑share options for TTAC and TPCC consideration. Public comment was solicited; none was received.
